nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Referendum-watch - Remove "blasphemy" from the Constitution?

Delirium

The Government is set to agree to hold a referendum on removing the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution, following recommendations of the constitutional convention earlier this year.

Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald is to bring a memo to Cabinet today proposing that a referendum be held on the issue.

While no timeframe is outlined, it is claimed the vote will be held on “an appropriate date to be decided by the Government”.

full article

Should have been done when they worked on the blasphemy law previously.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Child Item

Comments

expectationlost

Catholic Bishops recent statement

Proposal by the Government to hold a referendum to remove blasphemy from theConstitution of Ireland

Regarding yesterday’s decision by the Government to hold a referendum in October to remove blasphemy from the Constitution of Ireland, bishops reflected on the November 2013 submission of the Irish Council of Churches and the Irish Inter-Church Meeting to the Convention on the Constitution which considered this issue.

Bishops reaffirmed their position that the current reference to blasphemy in the Constitution, under article 40.6.1.i, is largely obsolete, and may give rise to concern because of the way such measures have been used to justify violence and oppression against minorities in other parts of the world. Bishops reiterated that the promotion of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for all in society greatly enriches the social fabric of a country, and is one aspect of respect for the dignity of human persons. The human right of faith communities to contribute to public life, including public debate on issues that are of importance to everyone, without being subjected to attack or ridicule, needs to be acknowledged and respected.

Bishops stressed that it is vital to ensure that the rights of individuals and communities to practice and live out their faith openly are protected by law. In this context bishops, once again, expressed their solidarity with all those, throughout the world, who are experiencing persecution, and human rights abuses, because of their faith or beliefs.

https://www.catholicbishops.ie/2018/06/13/statement-of-the-summer-2018-general-meeting-of-the-irish-catholic-bishops-conference/ so are they for or agin? https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-bishops-to-set-up-council-for-life-following-yes-vote-1.3529581 for removing.

https://www.catholicireland.net/reference-blasphemy-constitution-largely-obsolete-say-bishops/

Agreeing with the bishops, David Quinn from the Iona Institute said he would not “fight the removal of it from the Constitution”.

looks like we'll be seeing alot more of Ali Selim and other conservative catholic groups.

interesting that gov cite foreign governments citing our law to justify theirs (where there are more visible consequences) as reason to remove ours, something AI were saying for a while

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

looks like we'll be seeing alot more of Ali Selim ...

It could be awkward for him if he turns out to be the only spokesman for the No side in this referendum.

Michael Nugent

recedite wrote: »

It could be awkward for him if he turns out to be the only spokesman for the No side in this referendum.

I would say that the broadcast media, who have to demonstrate balance, will approach academics or legal experts and ask them to articulate the case for retaining the offence. Also, that they won't give it much coverage, and will focus more on the Presidential election.

Hotblack Desiato

It'd be a bit of a nightmare for broadcasters if a presidential election didn't happen, and blasphemy went to a vote on its own.

Now it's debatable whether the problem is the BAI rules or the broadcasters' interpretation of them, but giving 50% of the airtime to possibly 1% of the vote is not rational by any measure.

It might give Selim and Iona more rope to hang themselves with though

actually Iona are too media savvy and I expect them to not touch this with a bargepole.

Hotblack Desiato

Who is the other dude in the video Michael? I went to youtube but it doesn't say.

Hector Savage

Remove the blasphemy law!
Except when it's Mohammed, then we should throw anyone in prison who dares insult the prophet.

expectationlost

order establishes a Referendum Commission https://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/Ir200718.pdf

Hotblack Desiato

Hector Savage wrote: »

Remove the blasphemy law!
Except when it's Mohammed, then we should throw anyone in prison who dares insult the prophet.

Poor effort. 1/10.

Hector Savage

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Poor effort. 1/10.

It's not far from the truth though, look at the amount of public figures after Charlie Hebdo basically saying that they shouldn't have drawn the cartoons in the 1st place.

robindch

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's not far from the truth though, look at the amount of public figures after Charlie Hebdo basically saying that they shouldn't have drawn the cartoons in the 1st place.

A useful point to make, and much better made as here than in your previous post.

smacl

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's not far from the truth though, look at the amount of public figures after Charlie Hebdo basically saying that they shouldn't have drawn the cartoons in the 1st place.

True enough, but I dare say many of those senior figures wouldn't be any too pleased with their depictions either. I find it hit and miss with the occasional gem, but I can understand that some people take offense.

I found the beach cartoon that got them a new wave of threats pretty funny, but you wouldn't want to be too thin skinned

Hotblack Desiato

The caption roughly translates as "loosen up".

Don't muslims remove their body hair?

expectationlost

Oireachtas
research serivce published a Bill Digest: Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2018/2018-07-30_bill-digest-thirty-seventh-amendment-of-the-constitution-repeal-of-offence-of-publication-or-utterance-of-blasphemous-matter-bill-2018_en.pdf 40 pages of it, found nothing remarkable in it so far, only interesting thing is the suggestion in the constitutional review of getting rid of that section entirely and putting in something that actively supports free speech

Child Item